Maxbialystock

Maybe it depends on the closer. Kimbrel hasn't been so great in tie games and has been much better when a save is on the line. Rivera of the Yankees, on the other hand, seemed to be fine either way. Uehara too, at least in 2013. The great unknown in all these close games is usually what your own hitters will do. In the 3-2 loss to the Yankees, I thought we would do nothing, but I was wrong. Miller got the save, but only by the skin of his teeth.

Really? Is it reasonable and fair to criticize decisions that work out as well as those that don't? Better to say, "I just don't like him as a manager, whatever he does. The Sox finished last in 2014 and in 2015, end of story." My own belief is that the overwhelming majority of decisions by any manager, not just Farrell, are better informed than any alternatives we can think up. He not only has his own experience and knowledge of the players, but the benefit of all kinds of stats and inside knowledge, to say nothing of--in the case of a pitcher--insights from both the pitching coach and the bench coach. Last night, I think on espn.com, the story was that Buchholz fully expected to go back out for the 6th inning because his pitch count was under 90. But Farrell sent in a reliever, which I think was the right decision if only because right now the Sox have 8 relievers and the night before Farrell didn't need the bullpen. But guess what? If Farrell had sent Buchholz out, I would defend that too because I trust his collective judgment and insight a whole lot more than mine.

Farrell has 8 relievers, none of whom were needed last night, so I don't think he will wait for 7 runs.

Of course I want the Sox to win, but for now it's enough there is going to be a Monday night game at Fenway with the possibility if not probability that Buchholz will have a quality start. Beginning to look as though JBJ's move to the 8th spots is semi-permanent. Until he moves up again.

This is an incredible thread if only because the answer to the question is so obvious--no--one has to wonder why it was asked at all.

85 today. In his remarks at his HOF induction, he said he never saw anyone play the game better, and I have to agree with that. I did see him play and don't think there was a better all around player. He won a bunch of gold gloves in CF and still hit 660 dingers, 5th most all time. He also stole bases and won batting titles and played 24 seasons (despite serving in the US Army, 1952-53).

I think the game last night, nailing down 2 of 3 at Chicago, the best team with the best ERA in the AL, was a defining game for this team. Not defining the whole season, of course, but where they are. Why defining? 1. Starter Owens left after 3 innings, which has happened way too often this season. But Farrell brought the right guys in at the right times--except for Hembree, who had a bad night and almost cost the game--and the Sox held Chicago to 3 runs. 2. Seven rbi's, all by different guys. That's a deep lineup, which the Sox have enjoyed all season long, even when Young was in. 3. Solid if not brilliant defense. I think of Holt as the weak link, but he made a great grab and has shown a pretty good arm now and then. Ramirez surprisingly solid at 1B. So now the Sox are 6 games over.500 and .5 ahead of the Orioles despite a rotation with too many Freddy Krugers--Owens, Buchholz, and even Price come to mind. Kimrel too even though he usually frightens the opposition. Biggest surprise is that with five youngsters--Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ, Shaw, and Vazquez--this might be the least experienced good Sox team in a long, long time, maybe ever. I give Farrell credit for keeping JBJ in the 9 slot even though he has an OPS over .800. That has to drive opposing teams nuts. But it probably won't last.

I completely disagree with the notion of what I call "the big fix." Stanton would make the hitting better, of course, but it's already very good with Holt in LF. Fernandez would almost certainly help our woebegone rotation, but right now I'm enjoying watching the Sox find ways to compensate and still win games.

Actually, you killed the thread ( a defining game?) on the Talk Sox forum by attaching it to slasher's game thread.

Can they play tonight? Lots of rain here in DC. In his last start, ER was lousy, than very good. The hope is that Sunday will be a further step in the right direction. Owens is one of the very few Sox starters I've seen who can be sent to the showers before giving up 6 or 7 runs and before throwing 100 pitches. At least one famous manager once remarked, "if you don't have control, you have nothing."

I don't want to overstate Farrell's role because my inclination is always to give the players credit. I would have fired him last year. I have defended him this year only on general principles because I don't sweat in-game decisions or even lineups. I go by wins and losses. But I wanted to note that the rotation has made the in-game decisions a little tougher than usual and think Farrell has done that part well, last night being a great example. Even there, however, the relievers had to come through--Farrell hasn't thrown a single pitch this year. My real intent was to focus on the team, which I think shows a lot of promise even with a rotation with too many Freddy Kruegers (Owens and Buchholz come immediately to mind, but also Price and Kimbrel the closer).

Last night's win over Chicago might have been. The starter stunk. It was a cold night in Chicago and, more importantly, the rubber game against the current best team in the AL with the best pitching staff. The three things I like the most about last night are (in no particular order): 1) Seven runs batted in by seven different hitters, reaffirming this is a deep lineup; 2) Solid, if not brilliant defense; 3) astute management of pitching staff to replace Owens after 3 innings and Hembree, who did his best to open the floodgates for the White Sox, which allowed us to hold the White Sox to just 3 runs. We are still way early in the season. It this were 30 or more years ago, we would be looking for the infamous Red Sox "June swoon." For a Sox team, this one is pretty young, so you have to worry about their ability to stay focused thru that brutal 162 game season of basically 6 games a week. The rotation is a real concern, but the team ERA is coming down thanks in part to a pretty good bullpen, and dare I say it, managing. And the hitting, honestly, has been amazing. Ortiz is unreal, Ramirez seems to be coming around, Pedroia is like the 2008 version, Shaw is a huge, huge improvement over Sandoval, Bradley might be the best #9 hitter in the history of MLB (an exaggeration) and a big pain for opposing pitchers and managers, Holt is plugging along, and Betts and Bogaerts haven't reached their potential yet but are sure to. Both catchers catch and hit now and then.

Perhaps. But elsewhere Farrell is chastised for playing him at all. I happen to agree he is paid to hit all of them and that Farrell should give him opportunities--not too many--to do so.

Back to Iglesias. I didn't just like him for what he did for the team, I thought and still think that great defense is the poetry of MLB--whereas pitching and batting tend to be the prose. All that said, the rationale for letting him go in August 2013 was good--the Sox already had Drew starting and Bogaerts backing him up. If getting another starter would help get to the playoffs and beyond, so be it. Last year and this year, WAR-wise, Bogaerts had been near the top of AL shortstops. Others have argued we should have kept Bogaerts and Iglesias for 3B and SS in the future. Perhaps. But I like Bogaerts at SS right now.

Tonight is a crap shoot with two relatively untried starters. Good for us that Chicago is starting a righty even if no one has seen him. White Sox fans probably think lefty Owens is good for them. Rubber game in a key semi-defining early series.

You said it better than I because you are more concise.

Meh. I'm sure you're approach is better than mine, but what I like about Farrell's lineup with Pedroia #2 and Ortiz #4 is that it seems to be working despite the fact that our leadoff man gets lots of rbi's (and runs scored) even though his OBP is under .300 and Bogaerts hasn't driven in many runs from the 3 slot. I do remember Pedroia has good stats when batting 4th. Right now I even like Bradley in 9th because he has done a lot of damage there even though it seems to put an over .800 OPS at the bottom. Eventually, I think Bradley will move up in the order even though 9th has been good for him and the team. If I did anything up top, it might be to switch Ortiz with Bogaerts. After Manny left, Ortiz used to complain he couldn't get a good pitch to hit. So far this year, I think Ortiz has been IBB'd a couple or so times because Hanley is seen to be much easier to pitch to. On the other hand, it is also apparent that Ortiz has in fact gotten plenty of good pitches to hit so far this year.

I forgot the speed part, thanks. My guess is the FO reasoning is as follows: we signed Young for two years and $13M; we also signed Castillo for more than that; neither has delivered to date; but in the near term Young makes more sense because he wasn't too bad playing 140 games for the Yankees last year; Castillo, meanwhile, will benefit from more innings and at bats down at Pawtucket until we are ready to give him another shot in Boston; longer term, if he is up to it, Castillo gets LF (or RF), and Young or Holt is traded away (even though trading away Young won't be easy).

The thing about Holt playing LF so much is that so far he has best bat among himself, Castillo, and Young even though Farrell has sometimes platooned Young into LF against a lefty pitcher. I think Holt will stay in LF as long as he has the best bat. And why not? Playing LF does not prevent him from moving to an infield position, including during games.

You can't mean that. Individual games or at bats notwithstanding, he has been great so far this year and anything but helpless. His OPS for April was .846. However, as you imply, his OPS in 15 at bats against lefties this year is a horrendous .266.

More civil, but less interesting. I try not to be uncivil--even though I am longwinded and like my rhetorical flourishes too much--but I never put anyone on ignore, and over on BDC we had some people very much worth ignoring.

The most impressive thing this year about Swihart and Castillo both is the rapidity with which they were demoted. This doesn't mean they are bad players, but does mean that the front office acts decisively when it's clearly someone isn't helping. Swihart was struggling behind the plate, as was the pitching staff, and Vazquez seemed to be ready even though the surgery was only a year ago. Young and Castillo have basically the same skills, but Young played 140 games for the Yankees last year and seemed OK. Castillo has yet to live up to expectations and clearly needs more seasoning even though he is over 25 (pushing 30?). I don't think we will see Swihart back in Boston unless Hanigan or Vazquez is injured, but we could see Castillo. Young ain't helping much, at least not yet. Kind of reminds me of the saga of JBJ. The Sox didn't try to keep Ellsbury after 2013 because he was going to be way too expensive and because they had JBJ standing in the wings--an excellent centerfielder. But he couldn't hit to save his life. He still played a lot in 2014, but a lot less in 2015 with Betts taking over in CF and Bradley going back to Pawtucket. Still, the Sox kept bringing JBJ back up for short stints, including in August 2015 after Victorino was traded. I thought nothing would come of it, but agreed it made sense because the Sox were out of the race by then anyway. And suddenly Bradley started hitting and finished the season with an OPS over .800, which he still has this year. I was astounded. The problem for Swihart is, as Kingface says, he probably can't hit well enough to be a leftfielder. The same goes for Castillo. However, so far Holt is barely adequate. A leftfielder should have an OPS over .800. My guess--only that-- is no one among Holt, Swihart, and Castillo can maintain and OPS over .800 or over. Holt gets to stay in Boston because he can also play all four infield positions.

Why does this fall on Young? There were five other righty bats in the lineup last night--Betts, Bogaerts, Pedroia, Rutledge, and Vazquez--and three good lefty bats (Ortiz, Bradley, Shaw). I am not defending Young at all. Indeed, he does not impress me at all when he just stands at the plate looking at three called strikes. But he is still just 1 of 9 and hardly the most important 1. The alternative to Young is probably Castillo, but so far Castillo has not shown much on offense or defense. And how could anyone complain that Ortiz had a great night with 3 rbi's, including the key 2-run dinger? Right now he leads the team in rbi's, but there are several others who are knocking them in as well because the Sox have a pretty deep lineup this year even though Young hasn't contributed much to it.

A surprising game so far. I figured Buchholz to go 3 innings given the first.

I agree completely that Buchholz is problematical, but, heck, we just saw Price give up 6 to the Yankees woebegone offense.